Exploiting human workers is much more problematic than exploiting robots. In a post-scarcity society everyone would have access to healthcare, food, housing, energy, and any goods and services.
Robots will make robots, and raw materials will be automatically mined until taken from asteroids.
However i agree that ideally these robots should be collectively owned, or equally alloted so that individuals loan them to companies, with a public control ensuring that the equilibrium is maintained.
There should also be a prevention over the influence of the wealthy in politics, otherwise they'll find out a way to have more at the detriment of everyone else in their selfish race to be the number one(, e.g. artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, oligopolies, influence in politics, ...)
In short, i guess what i meant was to point at the elimination of poverty. However, i agree with you that we'll still need political institutions protecting us from the selfishness of the wealthy, otherwise there could be an increasingly inequal share of the 'surplus obtained from'/'exploitation of' these robots between the wealthy and the poor.
It'd change a lot about class conflict, perhaps even end the need for it.
Also i don't see why you're hesitating, they're already replacing jobs since the industrial revolution, my grandfather has been using a mowing robot for years now, my parents use one to clean the floor and their swimming pool, as well as to monitor their house. It won't take many years before getting one to clean the windows as well.
Service robots for consumer use have experienced a solid growth rate of 11% with close to 20 million units sold in 2024 (source)
Amazon has deployed its one millionth robot last year, they move shelves, sort parcels, bring products to humans, operate forklifts, ...
You probably already heard about China's "dark factories", which don't even need any human assistance or supervision.
Robots are already replacing taxi&truck drivers.
In agriculture as well they're beginning to drive tractors, are already milking cows, and are more&more distributing animal feed, cleaning some livestock buildings, spraying crops, destroying weeds(, with lasers), ...
If you were more specifically thinking of these multi-tasking androids depicted by sci-fi authors, that could just as well drive a car, mine, build a structure, or wash your dishes, then my opinion is that their humanoid precursors will be as numerous before 2035 as the current number of robotaxis, and be more widespread in 2050, including in homes.
On humanoid androids :
the Figure 02 robot supported the production of more than 30,000 BMW X3 vehicles over ten months (source from 2026)
Or here :
Digit, our general-purpose humanoid, has moved over 100,000 totes at GXO’s Flowery Branch facility (source from 2025)
The machine called it rational, selfishness is not christian and your realism is selfish, the following quote makes sense :
if a political order knowingly rejects a more equal and peaceful international arrangement merely because equality would weaken its own dominance, then that order cannot claim universal moral legitimacy.
Other societies would therefore be rational to refuse its moral authority, build alternative institutions, and protect their sovereignty
Each part of the all/whole has a responsibility in consequences affecting the all/whole(, either by provoking or enabling/'failing to prevent' it), i.e., choosing neutrality is enabling the winning side.
And the winning side is the one refusing diversity, Hungary is just one more example that despite its motto, the e.u. has a very narrow acception of diversity. One year ago, we found it authoritarian/unacceptable that Viktor Orbán used public medias for pro-Fidesz propaganda, but now we find it normal to use them for anti-'Orbán/Fidesz' propaganda, classic. The hungarian president mandate was supposed to end three years for now, but since any mean is justified it'll end tomorrow. We also considered the u.s.s.r. irredeemably authoritarian, a union which was dissolved through referendum, and every mean was justified to prevent communists from getting back into power, both through laws and medias. After our "friendly advices" that destroyed their economy once followed.
There's not a single european country obeying the e.u. that is considered authoritarian, and each heterodox european country disobeying us is authoritarian, an observation that can be extended to the rest of the world, certainly a coincidence.
Anyway, i clearly don't subscribe to what the e.u. means by "united in diversity", we're not diverse enough.
It's just that if we continue to oppose diversity all around the world, then the only end result is uniformity, which is less desirable than diversity, right ?
My ignorant opinion on the "dismantling campaign" recently announced by the u.s. against the International Criminal Court(, update) :
I think that the rules should be the same whether a country is weak or powerful, and that any country should be allowed to 'do what'/'be as different as' it wants domestically with an absolute freedom(, yes, even a democide wouldn't be a cause of sanctions by an international tribunal, as long as this government allows&helps its future victims to flee, those who choose to stay in order to wage a civil war should neither be helped nor hindered by foreign governments).
In a future that'd prevent all hostile overt actions(, e.g. world army), such international tribunal should only be concerned with covert actions abroad, in order to ensure everyone's security.
I'm insisting on security because here as well, once again, we justify our crimes through the pretext of our need for security, we 'always do'/'will continue to do so'. I point out that by ensuring the security of others we'd not only ensure ours(, if it ever was a sincere concern), but obtain diversity as well.
[1] : On the great lie that we're just fighting authoritarianism, not the "too different from us" :
It suffices to see how we never once considered an ally of the u.s.s.r. tolerable enough to be left alone(, even less accepted), and if it's not enough then realize that none of our many anti-communist allies were ever considered authoritarian enough to be sanctioned(, even less invaded). We're told it's about authoritarianism versus "democracy", that's one of their great lie.
We're also not taught at school the many greatnesses that the u.s.s.r. brought to its lucky/deserving citizens, it's all black-and-white. What good is your "just go live there" when you're intent on destroying it.
You'll still be unable/refusing to see through our lies/exaggerations about these countries. To you we're not imperialists but just anti-authoritarians, someone has to bear that difficult burden.
You especially refuse to believe that western authoritarianism would increase in times of crisis(, Patriot Act post-2001, France post-2015, ..., temporary measures now normalized into ordinary law), and that we knowingly increase their repression by increasing their insecurity. We create siege conditions and then pretend to be shocked by siege politics.
We'll hide the many criticisms our system would deserve(, on personal freedoms, mediatic freedom/plurality, lack of democracy, common injustices, our imperialism, ...), while also hiding everything good about other countries, e.g. : a high unemployment rate is a legal obligation in the west otherwise they couldn't easily fire people, but there was a 0% unemployment rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we've accepted homelessness as normal, but there was a 0% homelessness rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we say that their medias&elections aren't free, but ours are clearly influenced(, lobbying, donor influence, revolving-door corruption, expert "consensus", party gatekeeping, ostracism of conspiratorial/extremist/pro-foreign political opinions, ...) ; that they don't have any respect for their population, but we're allowing capitalism/thievery and promoting a private healthcare unaccessible to the poor ; we especially love to promote opponents to their "regime" while understandably opposing/condemning ours even though we(sterners) aren't attacked ; the leader of the "free world" has the highest incarceration rate ; and hundreds of examples.
You'll still naively believe that we're not imperialists/anti-disobedience but just anti-authoritarians, and hence that we shouldn't be opposed, and should even be supported.
The test is simple : if anti-authoritarianism was truly the principle, then our anti-communist dictatorships would have been treated as enemies instead of spending money to put them into place, and socialist (direct )democracies wouldn't have been demonized.
On the contrary, a pro-Western dictatorship can torture, ban parties, crush unions, censor the press, ..., and will be called "stable" or "strategic".
A socialist government can win elections and still be called a cheater that should be overthrown, and/or a threat if it nationalizes its resources and refuses to become a client state.
Their sin isn't authoritarianism but disobedience/difference. As a consequence, while our opponents are terrorists that should be killed, their opponents are freedom fighters that should be supported.
Their experts are parroting "regime" propaganda, while ours are always aligned with the foreign policy of our government, and often emerge from think tanks funded by private interests.
Their election are fake because opposition parties are harassed/filtered, but ours need signatures from mayors and a lot of money/donors, as well as media visibility, and a necessary amount of "respectable"/orthodox opinions to ever have a chance.
Our political candidates don't need to be banned since they're pre-filtered. Our journalists don't need to be arrested since they're marginalized, and usually censored in a general indifference because that's what they deserve for their supposedly dangerous unorthodoxy. Our dissidents can lose banking, platforms/visibility/reputation, employment, ..., without ever being formally imprisoned(, that's today).
Then we call the result of this institutional repression the marketplace of idea(l)s, a free debate, while describing them in other countries as suffering under the thumb of a single dictator arbitrarily sanctioning those who dare to ever displease h·er·im.
See pages 1167-1225 for a reverse card, demonizing is so easy : https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/doklady/2116571/?lang=en
Portugal’s Estado Novo dictatorship was a founding member of NATO, Franco’s Spain was accepted, as well as Papadopoulos' Greece and dozens more. A Pinochet was always preferred to an Allende, and a Suharto to a Sukarno. Our news would have been ferociously anti-'South Africa' if it had been communist, same for Israel right now.
The plainly visible rule that we somehow refuse to see is that authoritarianism is allowed when it's against communists, trade unionists, anti-colonial movements, palestinians, migrants, leftists, indigenous peasants, striking workers, anti-imperialists, ..., while it's suddenly morally intolerable when it's against western capital, military access, NGOs, media influence, property claims, or geopolitical obedience.
We(sterners) only hate a repression that isn't serving our side, and if it doesn't exist then we'll make it up(, Venezuela's humanitarian aid burned, Kadhafi's viagra, China's uyghurs genocide, al-Assad's chemical weapon use, Cuba's Havana syndrom, North Korea's too long list of cartoonish atrocity propaganda, ...), and we'll always focus on the good sides of our allies and on the bad sides of those we designated as our enemies(, who obviously don't want to be hated by us, just to freely choose a different path).
In any case, you're just as powerless as me in this "democracy", don't make waves and keep your job, you have children to feed.
I personally won't excuse our imperialism based on the "need" to save these population from their governments, feel free to believe that lie.
30 to 70 years to non-shooters for "domestic terrorism", 450 years in total for 8 persons.
The shooter didn't even kill anyone, he only harmed a policeman and got 100 years as a result.
Worst things happen everyday, no reason to be surprised, ok 🤷
For the "attack" of the 6 January of the Capitol, it was 1.300 cumulative years for 650 people, so that was even crazier.
Recently, also in the category "domestic terrorism", there were more than 22 cumulative years for 4 Palestine Action activists, only one of them wounded someone else, a policewoman, and got 7 years and 8 months.
No-one from the Epstein files was ever condemned b.t.w., but there's a thing about being powerless to resist peacefully in our "democracies", no doubt that these activists were taking risks to themselves in order to oppose injustices, one could say that they were anti-'domestic/foreign terrorists' condemned for domestic terrorism, since terrorism doesn't mean anything apart from "killers with a political motivation that we don't agree with"(, there's not even a need to kill apparently).
In a direct democracy, they could have used that energy in order to pass new laws(, in another mediatic environment,) while, in our current system, the extent of our authorized margin of action is to walk peacefully. Seems factual enough to write that.
And we're so proud of our "democracies" that we'll sanction&fight (socialist )countries who don't want to fight us, in order to liberate them. Even if our own surveys do not indicate such a higher satisfaction rate among our citizens, we'll repeat that it's for their own good if we harm them.
We(sterners) will criticize the imperialism of countries we dislike ? the U.S. has been involved in 393 military interventions in other nations since 1776. More than 200 of those have been since 1945, and 114 in the post-Cold War era (after 1989), try to beat that(, no doubt that invading Ukraine and Afghanistan made Russia worse than us, here's more if needed, they won't teach you this in school, just like they'll only focus&exaggerate on the bad parts of the u.s.s.r.).
Yeah, we are, no country even come close so how can we still paint ourselves as the good guys ? I don't get it, they were bad guys so the good guys liberated them from their oppressor, that's what we're taught, can you see how vietnamese people never needed our liberation ?
I hope that we(sterners) will lose, does that make me unpatriotic ? Well, the whole thing about the right is that they love France, yet want to change it(, in other words, just like the left, they don't like the current France).
I've been told by our designated enemies that if 'we lose'/'they win', then they'll put into place a multilateral new world order that their supporters have been calling for many decades ago.
We(sterners) aren't talking much about this topic, but our actions speak for themselves, we'll fight communists, islamists, and whatever diversity survived colonization. Why the fuck was/is it our role to fight i.s.i.s. for example(, suicide bombings were a consequence of our involvement not a cause) ?
So i hope that we'll lose.
Are these thoughts just against the west, or are they in support/favor of, currently, Venezuela(, sorry), Cuba(, sorry), Iran(, each year worse than the previous one, sorry), Russia(, sorry), Belarus(, sorry), North Korea(, sorry), China(, sorry), Palestine(, sorry), Lebanon(, sorry) , ...
And before that it was Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia(, as well as Pakistan, Somalia, ...)
And before that it was against communists all around the world(, many dozens of countries).
And before that it was the colonization(, almost each country).
In comparison, we generally don't accuse our designated enemies of being warmongers because we're simply unable to point at a single country they attacked, what a contrast.
Addition :
If the aim isn't anti-west but pro-world, then it can build something great.
On one side there's multilateralism, one of its possibilities would be that union in diversity, with a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones, after decades of testing conditions with a lot of money&people invested. God allows us even better options certainly(, ~each with many variants that do not all succeed).
On the other side is something i've discussed less : why do we prefer a monopoly to a peaceful diversity ?
If we(sterners) win, we'll erase the ideals of communism(, as well as any last anti-zionist, and islamists afterwards), so paint me your best utopia for once(, one day we'll have reached the end of our journey, unable to climb higher, will the lives of children born afterwards still be meaningful ?)
In your post-"victory" future, what will happen if something new emerges(, religion/socio-economy/culture/life/civilization/..,) that isn't allowed by a doxa that may continue to restrict itself afterwards ? What if this re(-e)volution comes from another planet ? If our answer hasn't changed, we'll fight it until it disappears, as we do now.
Ok then, but would you still consider such fight desirable if it's not necessary(, and never has been, we could have lived in diversity a long time ago already), the new means of communication only facilitates that even further, while military (robotic/biological/nuclear/.. )technology makes such fight even deadlier.
We manifestedly consciously rejected multilateralism many times to choose fighting instead, and since it was/is not because unifying in diversities is impossible, it's because it was/is less desirable. I've tried once again to understand why we did/do not desire such thing, and failed again.
It's not about morality[1], nor insecurity since it'd lead to a more stable world, and there's absolutely not any "need" for a western control, nor any other final form of history, so these are not answers.
If we're evil, then we don't want that any system is left as a better alternative than ours.
If we're stupid, then we believe that it's just the natural/'only possible' result of any competition(, that works on exclusion rather than attraction).
I don't think we're stupid, and demonizing others is lazy, so i still don't have a satisfying answer.
Governmental plans are usually good at pursuing multiple desirable options simultaneously, but here we really reject that option.
Are we just evil, and that's it ? Probably not, but then what's the answer ?
We(sterners) say that our "universal" values are 'just one historical project among others'/'not the natural destination of mankind' in theory, i think ?
We(sterners) act by not allowing other countries to take a (very )different historical trajectory than us.
So it's not an absolute acceptation(, far from it).
A genuinely multilateral world would require ensuring the security of everyone, no more military bases, alliances, sanctions, opposition funding, media influence, covert operations of all kind, financial pressure, military encirclement, ..., no more attacks/paranoia against them nor against us, no more foreign actors, expansionism, or the 'foreign threat' justification for authoritarianism, nor the confusion of safety with an asymetric control over others, no more "need" for a "Pax" Americana either. Ideally, no more calling our actions defensive/preventive and theirs agressive/authoritarian.
It's in the selfish interest of everyone including us that the world doesn't become reduced to western values, that we(sterners) become "only" one voice/project among others.
We don't dislike that there are alternatives, right ? And we do not try to deprive humanity from a better ideology than ours ? That last one would be too evil/unrealistic/condescending to believe in.
One more selfish explanation is that we'd be poorer than now relatively to the rest of the world, but if that's the case we'd still be rich enough to live comfortably thanks to our machines, it's also about the spiritual wealth brought by diversities.
Again, our security wouldn't be threatened by the success of these alternatives with the correct multilateral institutions(, e.g. a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones), so that's not a reason. Refusing to secure ourselves from their rise/'potential desire of revenge from our abuses' may end up in a win-lose scenario, so protecting everyone from any attack(, a win-win situation perhaps,) would be preferable to risking our loss(, and even our win perhaps), and probably more cautious than waiting passively while trusting in their good will.
As of now the most likely reasons seem to be our selfishness, unsatisfying.
I initially wrote more to insist on an extensive stress-testing for decades with a lot of money/people invested(, in which i said that Étienne Chouard is very suspicious of the powerful, one of his many virtues, yet even him would trust some national constitutions).
However, we(sterners) wouldn't want to share the world even if our own safety was ensured.
If i'm wrong, as i naively hope, then these results would be worth obtaining, and if we're unsatisfied for good reasons and find no way of ever 'answering our worries'/'improving the structure', then we'll know we're unable to find a way for multilateralism to be a valid option, only the race for global domination is left, a world government promoting unity through uniformity like our national states or current federations, with many laws applying to all.
If i'm right, then why would you support the west ?
If you want an answer : the Church herself would recommend you to read the canonical Gospels in greek and the Septuagint, which is what she encourages her students and most serious scholars to do.
As long as they don't change these original scriptures i do not care much about modern translations, which seem to me even better than the King James Version anyway(, the KJV wasn't based on the original texts b.t.w., but on the Textus Receptus).
I'm always down for defending the old¤t Church, and underlining the tragedy for us that her territory has been reduced to almost nothing, that's how we rewarded her for everything she did for us, ok... She'll continue to help us however she can and we'll continue to believe her outdated, ignorant that we wouldn't be there without her, and i.m.o. we'll continue to regress faster and faster by continuing to reject her.
At least the Church has a vision for a future ideal society, we do not even have such basic planning(, or if we have, then i don't see our citizens able to describe what we're aiming for in the long term).
As an example of her beneficial influence, the closest truly democratic examples, as in ancient Greece, were Florence, Venise and the Republic of the Escartons, all much closer to the papal states than the rest of Europe.
It's the Church that united Europe, launched the Pax Dei, encouraged us to turn towards arts and sciences(, contrary to the anti-religious propaganda that'd like to tell you that Galileo was tortured to death for saying that the Earth is round or sthg, it was actually the Pope that financed his researchs and many more), the Church was at the origin of most universities for instance, where it encouraged rational justifications of religion(, and didn't have much difficulties in finding them depending on the topic).
It was their monks and priests who cared for the last among us, until the state took back that duty a few centuries ago.
They were also our scholars, sometimes dedicating their entire lives to preserve old books that would have been lost otherwise.
Her canon laws had a strong influence over medieval laws, and aimed to make even the powerful accountable(, e.g. excommunicating even kings), which helped in stating that no-one is above the law.
We can always find faults in a 2000-year long history, but i just wanted to point out that she was the backbone of Europe that made everything possible, because God may have found less causes of displeasure than usual perhaps. And here we are now, despite all of our techno-scientific discoveries, lowered to the point of not realizing how inferior we've become to past aristocrats(, when i'm saying that they obviously had better souls in regard to the writings/thoughts of anyone among them, i'm answered that we have developed over time better laws and broader rights, which is not the same thing).
(getting rid of the need for armies and the risk of aggression would mean getting rid of the most important problem with switching from a nation to a confederation of city-states, so i'm saying that i'd believe in a christian city-state for more than a few reasons, it'd be among my criteria)
I can't help but feel that not answering to your comment would imply silently agreeing to it, so here's my disagreement :
Your comment wouldn't say anything if you dropped your judgment towards what you consider "fandom Jesus", judgment/opinions are good, but i agree that one of the teachings of the Christ was to love one another, to forgive each other and ask for forgiveness, to confess our sins, etc. Obviously to perceive&'revel in' God's omnipresent light if the external conditions aren't too dark for us, etc. etc.
I stumbled upon this video yesterday, and there are so many proofs that christianity is rational, yet some muslims seem to misrepresent what son of God means, and apparently some christians as well : John 1:12 « But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, »
Just a note 🤷 , thanks for your comment :)
(see also, among others, the Church oscillate between calling every being H··er·is children, and reserving such absolute for the Christ, perhaps distinguishing between a child and a worthy perfect Child)
Karapetyan was already under house arrest under politically motivated accusations(, before that it was Seyran Ohanyan and Artsvik Minasyan, as well as Artur Sargsyan, and seven others, and Robert Kocharyan, pro-russian clerics as well)
(Strong Armenia was not a marginal force but the main challenger, and Armenia reproduced what most "democratic" eastern european countries did post-1991 and post-2022)
(https://www.reuters.com/world/armenia-arrests-six-candidates-pro-russian-opposition-day-before-vote-2026-06-06)
(https://files.catbox.moe/rf61vh.mp4)
(Important to understand that the russian interference they're talking about are economic threats : vote anti-russian and be prepared for economic difficulties caused by Russia, just like the EU did to Georgia and others. In comparison the e.u. promises a €270M plan for 2024-2027 if Armenia is pro-EU, and relies on the European Endowment for Democracy for covert influence, particularly towards medias and personalities, as well as disinformation programs in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Belarus/Georgia/Ukraine/Moldova/.. in order to counter pro-russian "disinformation" medias.
In both cases, an external power tries to influence a country's trajectory, both in the name of what is Good of course(, and hopefully))
Am i necessarily criticizing the e.u. there ? Let's see : by containing Russia, they'll eventually be able to include it inside the West(, which would become the North), probably splitting the federation to ensure more control. After all, the goal is to be bigger than the others, until having the whole world, unified in a uniformity that got rid of all diversities(, instead of living with them). By ensuring the security of everyone(, e.g. through a world army preventing overt actions and an effective/incorruptible tribunal to prevent covert actions,) there wouldn't be these conflicts, city-states with their own constitution/laws would be great as well and no more military budget.
Seems like i was criticizing the e.u. yes.
If the security of everyone is ensured, then Russia's rise wouldn't be a threat to the european union, nor would be the rise of any other country(, except if they can't manage to prevent that some of their citizens hear about some forbidden foreign ideas, not ideal for them but not really insecurity either), and i'm interested to see what kind of diversity an inoffensive 'Russian Federation'/'slavic civilization' will bring to the world since it 'has the potential to be'/'already is' one of the centers of our world.
𝕏's algorithm is all right, and would greatly benefit from implementing customized "feed profiles", i'd love to be able to switch freely from my current feed to the opposite one for instance.
I'm also thankful to E.Musk for opposing how he could state censorship(, i know that you'll disagree, despite being unable to find any social media owner who did as much as him in this regard, facts are facts). https://x.com/i/status/2058548923589943653
I'm obviously not saying that E.Musk is perfect, only God is. It's always a mix of (+) and (-).
For instance, like most rich guys, he believes that more repression will lead to less crimes, despite the many experiments proving that material conditions are much more important. For instance the Middle Ages tortured people publicly(, not nobles obviously, only the poors), and yet had more crimes than nowadays. Another example is that the u.s.a. has less than 5% of the world’s population, but more than 20% of the world’s prison population, 5 times more than in the 70s, and 5 times more per inhabitant than in the People's Republic of China, and despite the harsher repression the crimes are still much higher in the u.s., so this proves i.m.h.o. that repression isn't everything, as Rafael Correa and others proved through their actions, or Claudia Sheinbaum current results.
I also believe in reformative prisons, not punitive ones, because i want less crimes and the former leads to less recidivism than the latter.
She believes that Venezuela will become the first socialist country ever befriended by the u.s.a./west ?
If not a traitor, then a fool. Embrace capitalism if you can't stand western aggression, there is no alternative.
(Even if she wins the elections following an economic boom, then the u.s. will complain of not being allowed to launch the same covert operations done all around the world(, USAID, NED, CIA, ...), and that it accuses Russia/China/.. of doing on their soil, but you can do anything if you're an anti-communist dictator)
I've never said that Iran doesn't attack outside its borders, but reminded the readers that it has somehow managed not to hit schools, medical facilities, or museums/monuments since the beginning of the war, the same clearly can't be said for Israel and the u.s., whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, or unfortunately in the past elsewhere as well, often hiding behind the lazy accusation of human shields, claiming that our strikes are chirurgical, the usual.
Why is it always the best comments that are censored ?
Sorry man, you're the only "opponent" i upvoted in this thread
Pfff, you were even perma-banned(, without any warnings), wtf, the rules aren't even in the sidebar !
Send me a DM if you ever want to keep discussing this, i'll create a censorship-free lemmy instance one day.
Yeah, sentlese was referring to the current conflict.
And i doubt that at this scale it is just mistakes and human shields, the worst possibility is that they want to terrorize Iran into submission, giving it a taste of the war/destruction to come if it doesn't accept Palestine's destruction.
Or these are just mistakes and Iran is somehow much more precise than them, and even the double tap strike in Minab's school at the beginning of the war was just a weird mistake.
Exploiting human workers is much more problematic than exploiting robots. In a post-scarcity society everyone would have access to healthcare, food, housing, energy, and any goods and services.
Robots will make robots, and raw materials will be automatically mined until taken from asteroids.
However i agree that ideally these robots should be collectively owned, or equally alloted so that individuals loan them to companies, with a public control ensuring that the equilibrium is maintained.
There should also be a prevention over the influence of the wealthy in politics, otherwise they'll find out a way to have more at the detriment of everyone else in their selfish race to be the number one(, e.g. artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, oligopolies, influence in politics, ...)
In short, i guess what i meant was to point at the elimination of poverty. However, i agree with you that we'll still need political institutions protecting us from the selfishness of the wealthy, otherwise there could be an increasingly inequal share of the 'surplus obtained from'/'exploitation of' these robots between the wealthy and the poor.
It'd change a lot about class conflict, perhaps even end the need for it.
Also i don't see why you're hesitating, they're already replacing jobs since the industrial revolution, my grandfather has been using a mowing robot for years now, my parents use one to clean the floor and their swimming pool, as well as to monitor their house. It won't take many years before getting one to clean the windows as well.
Amazon has deployed its one millionth robot last year, they move shelves, sort parcels, bring products to humans, operate forklifts, ...
You probably already heard about China's "dark factories", which don't even need any human assistance or supervision.
Robots are already replacing taxi&truck drivers. In agriculture as well they're beginning to drive tractors, are already milking cows, and are more&more distributing animal feed, cleaning some livestock buildings, spraying crops, destroying weeds(, with lasers), ...
They're also involved in mining, digging trenches autonomously, etc. It's in China that the world’s first fully unmanned paving construction was built two years ago, an highway of more than 150km !
There are also automative toll booth, welding robots, ...
If you were more specifically thinking of these multi-tasking androids depicted by sci-fi authors, that could just as well drive a car, mine, build a structure, or wash your dishes, then my opinion is that their humanoid precursors will be as numerous before 2035 as the current number of robotaxis, and be more widespread in 2050, including in homes.
On humanoid androids :
Or here :
Who knows 🤷
The machine called it rational, selfishness is not christian and your realism is selfish, the following quote makes sense :
Each part of the all/whole has a responsibility in consequences affecting the all/whole(, either by provoking or enabling/'failing to prevent' it), i.e., choosing neutrality is enabling the winning side.
And the winning side is the one refusing diversity, Hungary is just one more example that despite its motto, the e.u. has a very narrow acception of diversity. One year ago, we found it authoritarian/unacceptable that Viktor Orbán used public medias for pro-Fidesz propaganda, but now we find it normal to use them for anti-'Orbán/Fidesz' propaganda, classic. The hungarian president mandate was supposed to end three years for now, but since any mean is justified it'll end tomorrow. We also considered the u.s.s.r. irredeemably authoritarian, a union which was dissolved through referendum, and every mean was justified to prevent communists from getting back into power, both through laws and medias. After our "friendly advices" that destroyed their economy once followed.
There's not a single european country obeying the e.u. that is considered authoritarian, and each heterodox european country disobeying us is authoritarian, an observation that can be extended to the rest of the world, certainly a coincidence.
Anyway, i clearly don't subscribe to what the e.u. means by "united in diversity", we're not diverse enough.
It's just that if we continue to oppose diversity all around the world, then the only end result is uniformity, which is less desirable than diversity, right ?
My ignorant opinion on the "dismantling campaign" recently announced by the u.s. against the International Criminal Court(, update) :
I think that the rules should be the same whether a country is weak or powerful, and that any country should be allowed to 'do what'/'be as different as' it wants domestically with an absolute freedom(, yes, even a democide wouldn't be a cause of sanctions by an international tribunal, as long as this government allows&helps its future victims to flee, those who choose to stay in order to wage a civil war should neither be helped nor hindered by foreign governments).
In a future that'd prevent all hostile overt actions(, e.g. world army), such international tribunal should only be concerned with covert actions abroad, in order to ensure everyone's security.
I'm insisting on security because here as well, once again, we justify our crimes through the pretext of our need for security, we 'always do'/'will continue to do so'. I point out that by ensuring the security of others we'd not only ensure ours(, if it ever was a sincere concern), but obtain diversity as well.
[1] : On the great lie that we're just fighting authoritarianism, not the "too different from us" :
It suffices to see how we never once considered an ally of the u.s.s.r. tolerable enough to be left alone(, even less accepted), and if it's not enough then realize that none of our many anti-communist allies were ever considered authoritarian enough to be sanctioned(, even less invaded). We're told it's about authoritarianism versus "democracy", that's one of their great lie.
We're also not taught at school the many greatnesses that the u.s.s.r. brought to its lucky/deserving citizens, it's all black-and-white. What good is your "just go live there" when you're intent on destroying it.
You'll still be unable/refusing to see through our lies/exaggerations about these countries. To you we're not imperialists but just anti-authoritarians, someone has to bear that difficult burden.
You especially refuse to believe that western authoritarianism would increase in times of crisis(, Patriot Act post-2001, France post-2015, ..., temporary measures now normalized into ordinary law), and that we knowingly increase their repression by increasing their insecurity. We create siege conditions and then pretend to be shocked by siege politics.
We'll hide the many criticisms our system would deserve(, on personal freedoms, mediatic freedom/plurality, lack of democracy, common injustices, our imperialism, ...), while also hiding everything good about other countries, e.g. : a high unemployment rate is a legal obligation in the west otherwise they couldn't easily fire people, but there was a 0% unemployment rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we've accepted homelessness as normal, but there was a 0% homelessness rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we say that their medias&elections aren't free, but ours are clearly influenced(, lobbying, donor influence, revolving-door corruption, expert "consensus", party gatekeeping, ostracism of conspiratorial/extremist/pro-foreign political opinions, ...) ; that they don't have any respect for their population, but we're allowing capitalism/thievery and promoting a private healthcare unaccessible to the poor ; we especially love to promote opponents to their "regime" while understandably opposing/condemning ours even though we(sterners) aren't attacked ; the leader of the "free world" has the highest incarceration rate ; and hundreds of examples.
You'll still naively believe that we're not imperialists/anti-disobedience but just anti-authoritarians, and hence that we shouldn't be opposed, and should even be supported.
The test is simple : if anti-authoritarianism was truly the principle, then our anti-communist dictatorships would have been treated as enemies instead of spending money to put them into place, and socialist (direct )democracies wouldn't have been demonized.
On the contrary, a pro-Western dictatorship can torture, ban parties, crush unions, censor the press, ..., and will be called "stable" or "strategic".
A socialist government can win elections and still be called a cheater that should be overthrown, and/or a threat if it nationalizes its resources and refuses to become a client state.
Their sin isn't authoritarianism but disobedience/difference. As a consequence, while our opponents are terrorists that should be killed, their opponents are freedom fighters that should be supported.
Their experts are parroting "regime" propaganda, while ours are always aligned with the foreign policy of our government, and often emerge from think tanks funded by private interests.
Their election are fake because opposition parties are harassed/filtered, but ours need signatures from mayors and a lot of money/donors, as well as media visibility, and a necessary amount of "respectable"/orthodox opinions to ever have a chance.
Our political candidates don't need to be banned since they're pre-filtered. Our journalists don't need to be arrested since they're marginalized, and usually censored in a general indifference because that's what they deserve for their supposedly dangerous unorthodoxy. Our dissidents can lose banking, platforms/visibility/reputation, employment, ..., without ever being formally imprisoned(, that's today).
Then we call the result of this institutional repression the marketplace of idea(l)s, a free debate, while describing them in other countries as suffering under the thumb of a single dictator arbitrarily sanctioning those who dare to ever displease h·er·im.
See pages 1167-1225 for a reverse card, demonizing is so easy : https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/doklady/2116571/?lang=en
Portugal’s Estado Novo dictatorship was a founding member of NATO, Franco’s Spain was accepted, as well as Papadopoulos' Greece and dozens more. A Pinochet was always preferred to an Allende, and a Suharto to a Sukarno. Our news would have been ferociously anti-'South Africa' if it had been communist, same for Israel right now.
The plainly visible rule that we somehow refuse to see is that authoritarianism is allowed when it's against communists, trade unionists, anti-colonial movements, palestinians, migrants, leftists, indigenous peasants, striking workers, anti-imperialists, ..., while it's suddenly morally intolerable when it's against western capital, military access, NGOs, media influence, property claims, or geopolitical obedience.
We(sterners) only hate a repression that isn't serving our side, and if it doesn't exist then we'll make it up(, Venezuela's humanitarian aid burned, Kadhafi's viagra, China's uyghurs genocide, al-Assad's chemical weapon use, Cuba's Havana syndrom, North Korea's too long list of cartoonish atrocity propaganda, ...), and we'll always focus on the good sides of our allies and on the bad sides of those we designated as our enemies(, who obviously don't want to be hated by us, just to freely choose a different path).
In any case, you're just as powerless as me in this "democracy", don't make waves and keep your job, you have children to feed.
I personally won't excuse our imperialism based on the "need" to save these population from their governments, feel free to believe that lie.
30 to 70 years to non-shooters for "domestic terrorism", 450 years in total for 8 persons.
The shooter didn't even kill anyone, he only harmed a policeman and got 100 years as a result.
Worst things happen everyday, no reason to be surprised, ok 🤷
For the "attack" of the 6 January of the Capitol, it was 1.300 cumulative years for 650 people, so that was even crazier.
Recently, also in the category "domestic terrorism", there were more than 22 cumulative years for 4 Palestine Action activists, only one of them wounded someone else, a policewoman, and got 7 years and 8 months.
No-one from the Epstein files was ever condemned b.t.w., but there's a thing about being powerless to resist peacefully in our "democracies", no doubt that these activists were taking risks to themselves in order to oppose injustices, one could say that they were anti-'domestic/foreign terrorists' condemned for domestic terrorism, since terrorism doesn't mean anything apart from "killers with a political motivation that we don't agree with"(, there's not even a need to kill apparently).
In a direct democracy, they could have used that energy in order to pass new laws(, in another mediatic environment,) while, in our current system, the extent of our authorized margin of action is to walk peacefully. Seems factual enough to write that.
And we're so proud of our "democracies" that we'll sanction&fight (socialist )countries who don't want to fight us, in order to liberate them. Even if our own surveys do not indicate such a higher satisfaction rate among our citizens, we'll repeat that it's for their own good if we harm them.
We(sterners) will criticize the imperialism of countries we dislike ? the U.S. has been involved in 393 military interventions in other nations since 1776. More than 200 of those have been since 1945, and 114 in the post-Cold War era (after 1989), try to beat that(, no doubt that invading Ukraine and Afghanistan made Russia worse than us, here's more if needed, they won't teach you this in school, just like they'll only focus&exaggerate on the bad parts of the u.s.s.r.).
Yeah, we are, no country even come close so how can we still paint ourselves as the good guys ? I don't get it, they were bad guys so the good guys liberated them from their oppressor, that's what we're taught, can you see how vietnamese people never needed our liberation ?
I hope that we(sterners) will lose, does that make me unpatriotic ? Well, the whole thing about the right is that they love France, yet want to change it(, in other words, just like the left, they don't like the current France).
I've been told by our designated enemies that if 'we lose'/'they win', then they'll put into place a multilateral new world order that their supporters have been calling for many decades ago.
We(sterners) aren't talking much about this topic, but our actions speak for themselves, we'll fight communists, islamists, and whatever diversity survived colonization. Why the fuck was/is it our role to fight i.s.i.s. for example(, suicide bombings were a consequence of our involvement not a cause) ?
So i hope that we'll lose.
Are these thoughts just against the west, or are they in support/favor of, currently, Venezuela(, sorry), Cuba(, sorry), Iran(, each year worse than the previous one, sorry), Russia(, sorry), Belarus(, sorry), North Korea(, sorry), China(, sorry), Palestine(, sorry), Lebanon(, sorry) , ...
And before that it was Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia(, as well as Pakistan, Somalia, ...)
And before that it was against communists all around the world(, many dozens of countries).
And before that it was the colonization(, almost each country).
In comparison, we generally don't accuse our designated enemies of being warmongers because we're simply unable to point at a single country they attacked, what a contrast.
Addition :
If the aim isn't anti-west but pro-world, then it can build something great.
On one side there's multilateralism, one of its possibilities would be that union in diversity, with a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones, after decades of testing conditions with a lot of money&people invested. God allows us even better options certainly(, ~each with many variants that do not all succeed).
On the other side is something i've discussed less : why do we prefer a monopoly to a peaceful diversity ?
If we(sterners) win, we'll erase the ideals of communism(, as well as any last anti-zionist, and islamists afterwards), so paint me your best utopia for once(, one day we'll have reached the end of our journey, unable to climb higher, will the lives of children born afterwards still be meaningful ?)
In your post-"victory" future, what will happen if something new emerges(, religion/socio-economy/culture/life/civilization/..,) that isn't allowed by a doxa that may continue to restrict itself afterwards ? What if this re(-e)volution comes from another planet ? If our answer hasn't changed, we'll fight it until it disappears, as we do now.
Ok then, but would you still consider such fight desirable if it's not necessary(, and never has been, we could have lived in diversity a long time ago already), the new means of communication only facilitates that even further, while military (robotic/biological/nuclear/.. )technology makes such fight even deadlier.
We manifestedly consciously rejected multilateralism many times to choose fighting instead, and since it was/is not because unifying in diversities is impossible, it's because it was/is less desirable. I've tried once again to understand why we did/do not desire such thing, and failed again.
It's not about morality[1], nor insecurity since it'd lead to a more stable world, and there's absolutely not any "need" for a western control, nor any other final form of history, so these are not answers.
If we're evil, then we don't want that any system is left as a better alternative than ours.
If we're stupid, then we believe that it's just the natural/'only possible' result of any competition(, that works on exclusion rather than attraction).
I don't think we're stupid, and demonizing others is lazy, so i still don't have a satisfying answer.
Governmental plans are usually good at pursuing multiple desirable options simultaneously, but here we really reject that option.
Are we just evil, and that's it ? Probably not, but then what's the answer ?
We(sterners) say that our "universal" values are 'just one historical project among others'/'not the natural destination of mankind' in theory, i think ?
We(sterners) act by not allowing other countries to take a (very )different historical trajectory than us.
So it's not an absolute acceptation(, far from it).
A genuinely multilateral world would require ensuring the security of everyone, no more military bases, alliances, sanctions, opposition funding, media influence, covert operations of all kind, financial pressure, military encirclement, ..., no more attacks/paranoia against them nor against us, no more foreign actors, expansionism, or the 'foreign threat' justification for authoritarianism, nor the confusion of safety with an asymetric control over others, no more "need" for a "Pax" Americana either. Ideally, no more calling our actions defensive/preventive and theirs agressive/authoritarian.
It's in the selfish interest of everyone including us that the world doesn't become reduced to western values, that we(sterners) become "only" one voice/project among others.
We don't dislike that there are alternatives, right ? And we do not try to deprive humanity from a better ideology than ours ? That last one would be too evil/unrealistic/condescending to believe in.
One more selfish explanation is that we'd be poorer than now relatively to the rest of the world, but if that's the case we'd still be rich enough to live comfortably thanks to our machines, it's also about the spiritual wealth brought by diversities.
Again, our security wouldn't be threatened by the success of these alternatives with the correct multilateral institutions(, e.g. a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones), so that's not a reason. Refusing to secure ourselves from their rise/'potential desire of revenge from our abuses' may end up in a win-lose scenario, so protecting everyone from any attack(, a win-win situation perhaps,) would be preferable to risking our loss(, and even our win perhaps), and probably more cautious than waiting passively while trusting in their good will.
As of now the most likely reasons seem to be our selfishness, unsatisfying.
I initially wrote more to insist on an extensive stress-testing for decades with a lot of money/people invested(, in which i said that Étienne Chouard is very suspicious of the powerful, one of his many virtues, yet even him would trust some national constitutions).
However, we(sterners) wouldn't want to share the world even if our own safety was ensured.
If i'm wrong, as i naively hope, then these results would be worth obtaining, and if we're unsatisfied for good reasons and find no way of ever 'answering our worries'/'improving the structure', then we'll know we're unable to find a way for multilateralism to be a valid option, only the race for global domination is left, a world government promoting unity through uniformity like our national states or current federations, with many laws applying to all.
If i'm right, then why would you support the west ?
If you want an answer : the Church herself would recommend you to read the canonical Gospels in greek and the Septuagint, which is what she encourages her students and most serious scholars to do.
As long as they don't change these original scriptures i do not care much about modern translations, which seem to me even better than the King James Version anyway(, the KJV wasn't based on the original texts b.t.w., but on the Textus Receptus).
I'm always down for defending the old¤t Church, and underlining the tragedy for us that her territory has been reduced to almost nothing, that's how we rewarded her for everything she did for us, ok... She'll continue to help us however she can and we'll continue to believe her outdated, ignorant that we wouldn't be there without her, and i.m.o. we'll continue to regress faster and faster by continuing to reject her.
At least the Church has a vision for a future ideal society, we do not even have such basic planning(, or if we have, then i don't see our citizens able to describe what we're aiming for in the long term).
As an example of her beneficial influence, the closest truly democratic examples, as in ancient Greece, were Florence, Venise and the Republic of the Escartons, all much closer to the papal states than the rest of Europe.
It's the Church that united Europe, launched the Pax Dei, encouraged us to turn towards arts and sciences(, contrary to the anti-religious propaganda that'd like to tell you that Galileo was tortured to death for saying that the Earth is round or sthg, it was actually the Pope that financed his researchs and many more), the Church was at the origin of most universities for instance, where it encouraged rational justifications of religion(, and didn't have much difficulties in finding them depending on the topic).
It was their monks and priests who cared for the last among us, until the state took back that duty a few centuries ago.
They were also our scholars, sometimes dedicating their entire lives to preserve old books that would have been lost otherwise.
Her canon laws had a strong influence over medieval laws, and aimed to make even the powerful accountable(, e.g. excommunicating even kings), which helped in stating that no-one is above the law.
We can always find faults in a 2000-year long history, but i just wanted to point out that she was the backbone of Europe that made everything possible, because God may have found less causes of displeasure than usual perhaps. And here we are now, despite all of our techno-scientific discoveries, lowered to the point of not realizing how inferior we've become to past aristocrats(, when i'm saying that they obviously had better souls in regard to the writings/thoughts of anyone among them, i'm answered that we have developed over time better laws and broader rights, which is not the same thing).
(getting rid of the need for armies and the risk of aggression would mean getting rid of the most important problem with switching from a nation to a confederation of city-states, so i'm saying that i'd believe in a christian city-state for more than a few reasons, it'd be among my criteria)
👍
👍
I can't help but feel that not answering to your comment would imply silently agreeing to it, so here's my disagreement :
Your comment wouldn't say anything if you dropped your judgment towards what you consider "fandom Jesus", judgment/opinions are good, but i agree that one of the teachings of the Christ was to love one another, to forgive each other and ask for forgiveness, to confess our sins, etc. Obviously to perceive&'revel in' God's omnipresent light if the external conditions aren't too dark for us, etc. etc.
I stumbled upon this video yesterday, and there are so many proofs that christianity is rational, yet some muslims seem to misrepresent what son of God means, and apparently some christians as well : John 1:12 « But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, »
Just a note 🤷 , thanks for your comment :)
(see also, among others, the Church oscillate between calling every being H··er·is children, and reserving such absolute for the Christ, perhaps distinguishing between a child and a worthy perfect Child)
see the picture, here's the chapter : https://bible.com/bible/59/jhn.15.12.ESV
Karapetyan was already under house arrest under politically motivated accusations(, before that it was Seyran Ohanyan and Artsvik Minasyan, as well as Artur Sargsyan, and seven others, and Robert Kocharyan, pro-russian clerics as well)
(Strong Armenia was not a marginal force but the main challenger, and Armenia reproduced what most "democratic" eastern european countries did post-1991 and post-2022)
(https://www.reuters.com/world/armenia-arrests-six-candidates-pro-russian-opposition-day-before-vote-2026-06-06)
(https://files.catbox.moe/rf61vh.mp4)
(Important to understand that the russian interference they're talking about are economic threats : vote anti-russian and be prepared for economic difficulties caused by Russia, just like the EU did to Georgia and others. In comparison the e.u. promises a €270M plan for 2024-2027 if Armenia is pro-EU, and relies on the European Endowment for Democracy for covert influence, particularly towards medias and personalities, as well as disinformation programs in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Belarus/Georgia/Ukraine/Moldova/.. in order to counter pro-russian "disinformation" medias.
In both cases, an external power tries to influence a country's trajectory, both in the name of what is Good of course(, and hopefully))
Am i necessarily criticizing the e.u. there ? Let's see : by containing Russia, they'll eventually be able to include it inside the West(, which would become the North), probably splitting the federation to ensure more control. After all, the goal is to be bigger than the others, until having the whole world, unified in a uniformity that got rid of all diversities(, instead of living with them). By ensuring the security of everyone(, e.g. through a world army preventing overt actions and an effective/incorruptible tribunal to prevent covert actions,) there wouldn't be these conflicts, city-states with their own constitution/laws would be great as well and no more military budget.
Seems like i was criticizing the e.u. yes.
If the security of everyone is ensured, then Russia's rise wouldn't be a threat to the european union, nor would be the rise of any other country(, except if they can't manage to prevent that some of their citizens hear about some forbidden foreign ideas, not ideal for them but not really insecurity either), and i'm interested to see what kind of diversity an inoffensive 'Russian Federation'/'slavic civilization' will bring to the world since it 'has the potential to be'/'already is' one of the centers of our world.
𝕏's algorithm is all right, and would greatly benefit from implementing customized "feed profiles", i'd love to be able to switch freely from my current feed to the opposite one for instance.
I'm also thankful to E.Musk for opposing how he could state censorship(, i know that you'll disagree, despite being unable to find any social media owner who did as much as him in this regard, facts are facts).
https://x.com/i/status/2058548923589943653
I'm obviously not saying that E.Musk is perfect, only God is. It's always a mix of (+) and (-).
For instance, like most rich guys, he believes that more repression will lead to less crimes, despite the many experiments proving that material conditions are much more important. For instance the Middle Ages tortured people publicly(, not nobles obviously, only the poors), and yet had more crimes than nowadays. Another example is that the u.s.a. has less than 5% of the world’s population, but more than 20% of the world’s prison population, 5 times more than in the 70s, and 5 times more per inhabitant than in the People's Republic of China, and despite the harsher repression the crimes are still much higher in the u.s., so this proves i.m.h.o. that repression isn't everything, as Rafael Correa and others proved through their actions, or Claudia Sheinbaum current results.
I also believe in reformative prisons, not punitive ones, because i want less crimes and the former leads to less recidivism than the latter.
She believes that Venezuela will become the first socialist country ever befriended by the u.s.a./west ?
If not a traitor, then a fool. Embrace capitalism if you can't stand western aggression, there is no alternative.
(Even if she wins the elections following an economic boom, then the u.s. will complain of not being allowed to launch the same covert operations done all around the world(, USAID, NED, CIA, ...), and that it accuses Russia/China/.. of doing on their soil, but you can do anything if you're an anti-communist dictator)
If you wonder why, it's because facts and statistics proving Israel's intent to destroy Palestine are sometimes less convincing than direct testimonies : https://x.com/i/status/2038038666241794451
(https://files.catbox.moe/rhx6zb.mp4)
which one ?
I've never said that Iran doesn't attack outside its borders, but reminded the readers that it has somehow managed not to hit schools, medical facilities, or museums/monuments since the beginning of the war, the same clearly can't be said for Israel and the u.s., whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, or unfortunately in the past elsewhere as well, often hiding behind the lazy accusation of human shields, claiming that our strikes are chirurgical, the usual.
Why is it always the best comments that are censored ?
Sorry man, you're the only "opponent" i upvoted in this thread
Pfff, you were even perma-banned(, without any warnings), wtf, the rules aren't even in the sidebar !
Send me a DM if you ever want to keep discussing this, i'll create a censorship-free lemmy instance one day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/iran-us-bases.html
Yeah, sentlese was referring to the current conflict.
And i doubt that at this scale it is just mistakes and human shields, the worst possibility is that they want to terrorize Iran into submission, giving it a taste of the war/destruction to come if it doesn't accept Palestine's destruction.
Or these are just mistakes and Iran is somehow much more precise than them, and even the double tap strike in Minab's school at the beginning of the war was just a weird mistake.